Muslims don’t assimilate, they infiltrate

Every notion we in the West have adopted in terms of dealing with Muslims, both individually and collectively, is wrong.

It is a policy based more on political correctness than on rational analysis, more on a misunderstanding of culture than religion.

The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s by the International Institute for Islamic Thought, a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them, similar to the tactics used by the political left, when they hurl the accusations of “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe” and “hate-speech.”

It became the role of Islamist lobby organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to depict themselves as civil-rights groups speaking out on behalf of a Muslim American population that was allegedly besieged by outsiders who harbored an illogical, unfounded fear of them and regularly accusing the American people, American institutions, law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of harboring a deep and potentially violent prejudice against Muslims. Of course, FBI data on hate crimes show that such allegations are nonsense.

Contrary to the propaganda, Islamophobia is not what Muslims feel, but what radical Muslims hope to instill politically and culturally in non-Muslims cultures, that is, intimidation and fear. Thereby, they can, not only further their goal of a global Caliphate, but gain a type of “respect” to which they would otherwise not be entitled based on an absence of convincing arguments or constructive contributions to society.

Danish psychologist, Nicolai Sennels, who treated 150 criminal Muslim inmates found fundamental and largely irreconcilable psychological differences between Muslim and Western culture, which makes effective assimilation at best serendipity and at worst urban myth.

For example, Muslim culture has a very different view of anger. In Western culture, expressions of anger and threats are probably the quickest way to lose face leading to a feeling of shame and a loss of social status. In Muslim culture, aggressive behaviors, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts.

In the context of foreign policy, peaceful approaches such as demonstrations of compassion, compromise and common sense are seen by Muslim leaders as cowardice and a weakness to be exploited. In that respect, anger and violence are not reasons to begin negotiations, but are integral components of the negotiation process itself.

According to Sennels, there is another important psychological difference between Muslim and Western cultures called the “locus of control,” whether people experience life influenced by either internal or external factors.

Westerners feel that their lives are mainly influenced by inner forces, our ways of handling our emotions, our ways of thinking, our ways of relating to people around us, our motivations, and our way of communicating; factors that determine if we feel good and self-confident or not.

In Muslim culture, however, inner factors are replaced by external rules, traditions and laws for human behavior. They have powerful Muslim clerics who set the directions for their community, dictate political views, and provide rules for virtually all aspects of life.

The locus of control is central to the individual’s understanding of freedom and responsibility. When Westerners have problems, we most often look inward and ask “What did I do wrong?” and “What can I do to change the situation?” Muslims look outward for sources to blame asking: “Who did this to me?” Sennels noted that a standard answer from violent Muslims is often: “It is his own fault that I beat him up (or raped her). He (or she) provoked me.”….. MORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He’s confronting the post-World War II international order – and winning

By Justin Raimondo

AntiWar.comApril 1, 2016Email PrintFacebookTwitterShare

The candidacy of Donald J. Trump has upended American politics, and, indeed, has changed the political landscape in ways our liberal and conservative elites never expected and clearly abhor. He talks like an ordinary person, for one thing – a rarity in a realm where politicians routinely speak as if they are giving a speech before the Peoria Rotary Club. Unrehearsed and raw, he doesn’t do “talking points” – and this, I think, more than his controversial proposal to deport millions of illegal immigrants, has provoked the policy wonks and the “intellectuals” into paroxysms of contempt.

The Great Trump Wall: Guarding My Country, Garden, and Selfhood from Greedy Dragons

******************************

Vanity | 4/1/2016 | Pocono PunditPosted on 4/1/2016, 6:51:50 AM by poconopunditTrump’s promise to build a Great Wall across America’s southern border is the cornerstone of today’s movement to take back our country from the corrupt leaders on Wall Street and in our government.

But Trump’s call for a defensive perimeter extends far beyond mere physical walls. It’s also about the right to protect our private property from the greedy hands of the leftists. Wrapping some deeper thinking and images around the concept of Walls is what this story is about. Many thanks to FReeper tinyowl for inspiring many of these thoughts. Let’s first take a look at protective walls and boundaries through the prism of martial arts.The heritage of Chinese martial arts like Kung Fu and Tai Chi has brought us some enduring graphic symbols to think about. One such symbol is a garden surrounded by tigers. To preserve that peaceful, beautiful and gentle garden, we need tigers to protect it.

…….Ordinary Americans need to recognize that there is no longer representative government in the United States. Once elected, members of Congress serve only the interests of themselves, their party, and their wealthy donors. Petitioning members of Congress on important issues is an exercise in futility.

The federal government is now under the control of the enemy, which must be vigorously opposed. Think of it as a large, wild, and dangerous animal, which can be subdued only through starvation and exhaustion.

Starve it of taxes by maximizing individual and corporate tax deductions and tax credits.inShare1constitution 2 SC What now, you ask?

Political insurgency

Engage in barter or other means via an underground economy. Vote against all local and state propositions to increase taxes.

Exhaust the federal government administratively by legally applying for every possible government benefit, such as food stamps, student loans, maximum use of government-funded healthcare, and overwhelming federal agencies with a multitude of questions, requests, and complaints regarding its… services…..

Gen. John Kelly, USMC, is retiring after more than four decades as an active-duty Marine. His “greatest fear,” he says, is that the vast “equal opportunity” pressure for women in combat roles will lead the Pentagon to water down standards.Kelly is finishing up as head of US Southern Command after an exemplary career that included three tours in Iraq.

He’s also the highest-ranking US officer to have lost a child in the nation’s post-9/11 wars: His son, 1st Lt. Robert Kelly, USMC, was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2010.Why is he worried?Well, Defense Secretary Ash Carter last month announced that women will soon be eligible for all combat positions. (They had been blocked from about 10 percent of those posts.)

Yes, Carter also warned that equal opportunity wouldn’t bring “equal participation by men and women in all specialties.”The reasons are obvious: On average, the two sexes simply have different physical virtues. Men will dominate when it comes to upper-body strength, which is generally vital in combat roles. And Carter has vowed not to alter the high standards for those roles.

But Kelly doubts that will last: “Whether it’s 12 months from now, four years from now … the question will be asked whether we’ve [truly] let women into these other roles.” Ideologues who don’t see the results they want will ask, “Why aren’t [women] staying in those roles?

Why aren’t they advancing as infantry people?”Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has already offered a taste of what’s ahead. He’s denied the Marine Corps’ request to continue sex-segregated boot camp and Officer Training School. Indeed, on ­Jan. 1, he gave the Corps just two weeks to come up with an integration plan.On top of that, he’s ordered the Marines to adopt politically correct titles by changing every “man” label.

That implies the Marines are about to lose every “rifleman” — when every Marine is a rifleman.It’s impossible to think of a worse insult — or a greater sign that the ideologues will win in the not-so-distant future.The Fire Department of New York has bitter experience with the same drill. The Post runs regular exposés of the efforts to bend (already lowered) FDNY standards with an eye to a “better” gender balance.Look, we admire the heck out of a woman who keeps trying even after she’s failed a key FDNY physical test six times.

But it’s shocking to see her become a firefighter without ever passing.It’s beyond troubling to think about the potential impact on public safety and firefighter safety.And it’s impossible not to share Gen. Kelly’s fears for the future of our men and women in uniform……